I just came across the English Wikipedia article on Wikidata. Parts ofit are very incomplete and outdated. The section "Reception" offersthree sentences that reflect the all-but-neutral POV of a single source,weasel-wording around actually naming the person whose opinion wasreproduced here [1].

I feel too involved to edit this, but it would be nice if people who areactive in both communities could at least try to cover all relevantaspects of this topic (e.g., awards won by Wikidata, views offered inthe media, actual usage with references, updated statistics aboutstatement references with pointers on where to get current numbers). Afull section on relevant critique could also be of interest. What iscurrently there cannot even do this goal any justice, since it onlymentions concerns that are generic problems of all Wikimedia projectsalike (though not all of them can claim the same rate of citationsupport ;-).

Cheers,

Markus

[1]"""Reception

There is concern that the project is being influenced by lobbyingcompanies, PR professionals and search engine optimizers.[27]

As of December 2015, according to Wikimedia statistics, half of theinformation in Wikidata is unsourced.[27] Another 30% is labeled ashaving come from Wikipedia.[27]"""